271–280 of 734 posts
Big picture, I'll always believe we dodged a huge bullet in that "AI" got big in a nearly fully "open-source," maybe even "post open-source" world. The fact that Meta is, for now, one of the good guys in this space (purely strategically and unintentionally) is fortunate and almost funny.
Oh, they're actually the bad guys, just folks haven't thought far enough ahead to realise it yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Llama is not open source. It is at best weights available. The license explicitly limits what kind of things you are allowed to use the outputs of the models for.
Which, given what it was trained on, is utterly ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dont make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Mark Zuckerberg. He didnt open source anything because he's a "good guy", he's just commoditizing the complement. The "good guy" is a competitive environment that would render Meta's AI offerings to be irrelevant right now if it didnt open source.
The reason Machiavellianism is stupid is that the grand ends the means aim to obtain often never come to pass, but the awful things done in pursuit of them certainly do. So the motivation behind those means doesn't excuse them. And I see no reason the inverse of this doesn't hold true. I couldn't care less if Zuckerburg thinks open sourcing Llama is some grand scheme to let him to take over the world to become its go…
That doesn't feel quite right as an explanation. If something fails 10 times, that just makes the means 10x worse. If the ends justify the means then doesn't that still fit into Machiavellian principles? Isn't the complaint closet to "sometimes the ends don't justify the means"?
- Ilya Sutskever, Co-founder, co-lead of Superalignment Team , Departed early 2024
- May 15, 2025, The Atlantic
Anyway, I concur it's a hard choice as one other comment mentions.
Can someone make an honest argument for how OpenAI staff are missionaries, after the coup? I'd be very happy to be convinced that supporting the coup was the right move for true-believer missionaries. (Edit: It's an honest and obvious question, and I think that the joke responses risk burying or discouraging honest answers.)
Altman has to be the most transparently two-faced tech CEO there is. I don't understand why people still lap up his bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I don't follow. >because someone else has better LLMs and builds them into products If that were true they wouldn't be trying to create the best LLM and give it for free. (Disclaimer: I don't think Zuck is doing this out of the good of his heart, obv. but I don't see the connection with the complements and whatnot)
I think its about sapping as much user data from competitors. A company seeking to use an LLM has a choice between OpenAI, LLaMA, and others. If they choose LLaMA because it's free and host it themselves, OpenAI misses out on training data and other data like that
> OpenAI is the only answer for those looking to build artificial general intelligence Let’s assume for a moment that OpenAI is the only company that can build AGI (specious claim), then the question I would have for Sam Altman: what is OpenAI’s plan once that milestone is reached, given his other argument: > And maybe more importantly than that, we actually care about building AGI in a good way,” he added. “Other co…
Nope AGI is not the end goal - https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity > OpenAI is a lot of things now, but before anything else, we are a superintelligence research company. IMO, AGI is already a very nebulous term. Superintelligence seems even more hand-wavy. It might be useful to define and understand limits of "intelligence" first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, they're actually the bad guys, just folks haven't thought far enough ahead to realise it yet.
> bad guys You imply there are some good guys. What company?
Twitter circa 2012?
In 2025? Nobody, I don't think. Even Mozilla is turning into the bad guys these days.
Big picture, I'll always believe we dodged a huge bullet in that "AI" got big in a nearly fully "open-source," maybe even "post open-source" world. The fact that Meta is, for now, one of the good guys in this space (purely strategically and unintentionally) is fortunate and almost funny.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money.
What money is in it for the "rationalist", AI doom crowd that build up the narrative Altman wants for free?